The grial of Valencia is directly linked with the characters of the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table, according to a Discovery Channel documental I saw long ago. So, that's not just a coincidence.

The grail of Valencia is of course linked to the legends, and probably from that era when the grail was incorporated in Catholic mythology (along with the wonders of numerous saints, the Maria Magdalena's arrival in France and similar stories).

Just to clear this out, the Holy Grail is still largely unknown. Sang Real "Royal Blood" that Mr. Brown wrote about is still merely a theory which is cleverly manipulated into tricking many readers that such theory is accurate.

I am not against Da Vinci Code. It's a fun book to read, but the readers should be aware of what are facts and what are work of fictions.

It's funny.... there are so many AE members complaining about 300, and yet none of them talk complain about Da Vinci Code....

Well, i seriously dont think that anyone is prepared to say that a physical representation of the "holy Grail" exists, or that it ever did, with any "proof". That would be like saying "Gallahad" existed.

Well, i seriously dont think that anyone is prepared to say that a physical representation of the "holy Grail" exists, or that it ever did, with any "proof". That would be like saying "Gallahad" existed.

What people expect is that the legends contain precise fact. Of course they are not precise but symbolic and idealized representations. However, deep inside any legend that deserve respect, there are some historical facts that got blured.

The "holy Grail", in the Middle Ages, existed as such. Some people believe that the cup of Valencia was the origin of several of those myths. The legends of King Arthur, on the other side, seem to be a compendium of several Middle Ages traditions of several different places in Europe.

As far as I know, a branch of those traditions, particularly the ones related with the Holy Grail, started to go around in Spain long time before the Arthurian canon developed.

I don't have the facts at hand, but it is an interesting topic of study that look to be more serious that previously though. We are not talking of magic here but of the history of legends.

Looks like no one believes in the Da Vinci code holy grail stuff due to inaccuracies and lacklustre supporting evidence.

okay! I more or less agree and can't offer nothing new on the subject but;

Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)

Seems if peeps can accept one such incredible immaculate conception pregnancy then why not two?

Looks like no one believes in the Da Vinci code holy grail stuff due to inaccuracies and lacklustre supporting evidence.

okay! I more or less agree and can't offer nothing new on the subject but;

Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)

Seems if peeps can accept one such incredible immaculate conception pregnancy then why not two?

That's because whether Mary was a virgin prior to the birth of Christ is nothing but a matter of faith, as is Jesus' role as the Redeemer. Personally, I believe He is, and if Mary was a virgin, well, what does it matter? Details like that often serves to draw focus from the main issues.

As for the legend of the Messianic bloodline, that is just speculations based on, well, legends, and some Christians believe that such speculations are anti-Christians and therefore not to be uttered. Also, the Messianic bloodline is merely pseudo history, while the virginity of Mary purely is a matter of faith.

Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby
gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without
question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving
birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)

Seems if peeps can accept one such incredible immaculate conception pregnancy then why not two?

First off, there is absolutely no evidence in the Bible to suggest that Jesus had a wife, let alone choosing Mary Magdalene as a wife. I people only associate her as somebody special because she can be the figurehead of a cause, lets say feminism in the case of her being a strong woman in the face of a patriarchal dominant male conspiracy, or perhaps as a redeeming figure for women who have made bad choices, she was a prostitute who turned from her sinful ways. Other than that she is mentioned in the Bible twice. Once when Jesus tells her to stop her ways, and again when she finds Jesus' tomb empty. They also mention two other women who find Jesus' tomb, how come they are never mentioned as possible spouses?

In fact all of the evidence suggests that Jesus wasn't married to Mary Magdalene, first off because if he was married it would have been done years and years earlier, since that was the tradition at the time, I mean he didn't meet Mary Magdalene until he was in his thirties.

Also to show reasoning for why he wasn't married:

We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the
brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1
Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not
embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that
they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he
had been married.SOURCE: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13520_1.html

In my opinion I assume that Jesus was raised in the faith of Joseph who I believe was a sadducee or temple jew. Then sometime after Joseph's death, Jesus began to become more aware of his own divinity and spirituality. He seems to have taken up with the essenes (monastic jews) as he grew up, which is shown in his visit to John the Baptist (who was an essene). And essenes were a celibate sect, so it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to see Jesus as a bachelor.

-------------

Onto the virgin birth, throughout all of the Near East and Asia Minor there were many many stories of mythological figures having virgin births so this was actually very easy for people at the time to accept.

The reason that Christians must make a big deal and go "overboard" on the virgin birth is because Jesus must have no mortal father to be the incarnation of God on earth. And the only way to be certain of that is for Mary the vessel chosen by God to be untainted by man. Theologically even suggesting that she had relations after the fact would lead people to believe that she could have had relations with Joseph prior to Jesus' birth, which would bring into question Jesus' role as the Son of God.

Did she remain an eternal virgin? I don't know but this has shed some light on my thoughts:

To understand what
Matthew means when he says "He (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary)
UNTIL she gave birth to a son", one only has to look at the Hebrew
meaning of "until" and other references in the bible. "Until" makes
reference to ONLY the time that has passed before the occurence;
therefore meaning "before". It does not mean that Joseph necessarily
had relations with Mary after this time. Two examples in the bible
which support this: 1 Timothy 4:13 "Till I come, attend to reading, to
exhortation, and to the doctrine". This clearly doesn't mean that they
should stop this when he returns, but rather "while I am gone". Another
example from Psalms 109:1 "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my
right hand UNTIL I make Thy enemies Thy footstool". We know that that
the Lord is eternally at God's right hand and not just "until" he makes
His enemies His footstool.

As to whether Jesus had children, do you think Jesus, knowing all that would befall him and making the choices he did, would abandon a woman he loved and his children he loved, only to have them either be forced into exile, killed or harmed in other ways or used as a political devise?

No of course not, which is why I believe Jesus would not have married and had kids since, he knew he would be traveling a lot spreading his message, and he knew that he would dedicate his life entirely to spreading the word of God, and that he would eventually die for this.

it amazes me how folks can denounce one thing yet accept without question another.

As I have shown only lazy or ignorant Christians accept anything without question.

Of course it all comes down to faith anyway, personally I don't like to believe my religion is the fairy tale portrayed in the Da Vinci Code.

Out of curiosity Mary Magdalene being pregnant with Jesus baby gets panned as unbelievable though how many of you accept without question and simply on faith alone the story of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. (as in virgin birth without nookie)

I have a feeling that the whole Virgin birth thing came from Mithras. Mithras' birthday was even on December 25th. Mithras followers supposedly also ate a sacred meal of Bread and Wine, and they also had a baptizing ritual with water.

There's also Sol Invictus who has a Halo, his birthday is also celebrated on Dec 25th, and there were later images of Jesus in a chariot in the sky just like Sol Invictus.

So it's very easy to see that at the Nicaea Convention, when writing the Canons they took Pagan beliefs so that they may give the pagan people something very familiar.

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus may have existed, but he was probably just as human as you and I and preached a new branch of Judasism. Infact this was a major arguement at the convention. Should he be seen as a human prophet who risked everything for his belief, or something divine. Obviously Divine won out, which would have happened either way as divinity means power as far as I'm concerned. So this is what we have today, and people believe full heartedly in it.

To question someones belief in why they believe one thing and not the other is like questioning them whether they believe they are human or not. To them their belief is as clear as day as if they were looking in the mirror and seeing the obvious. You can't turn a believer into a non-believer unless they have some personal revelation. Faith is powerful.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

I think it's alot easier to turn non-believers into believers. And who said I said there was anything wrong with it? I never found dedication to something wrong unless it was getting to the point of radicalism and pushing your faith onto others.

As of yet i haven't heard of a believer turning into a athiest because of another athiest. You don't see athiest missionaries or athiest pushing their beliefs on others, partly because we don't have any doctrine to begin with.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that all the athiest on this forum came to their conclusion on their own.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

it amazes me how folks can denounce one thing yet accept without question another.

I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then why do I not believe in the divinity of Odin or Cernunnios or other Mythological dieties? Because that would be contradictory.

Of course, believing Mary was a virgin and that Jesus had descendants is not contradictory, but the point remains the same: If you accept everything, you would display a severe lack if critical thinking.

And as Janus said: Only lazy or ignorant Christians swallow everything without question.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum